Former Foreign Secretary David Miliband faces a £70,000 bill to repair his house after losing another dispute with neighbours over the felling of a nuisance tree in his back garden.
The 59-year-old former MP is now threatening to sue his local council for damages after his second attempt to cut down the “extraordinarily beautiful”, 26-foot-tall maple was rejected.
He claims the roots have damaged the foundations of his £3.5 million home in leafy Primrose Hill, north London, and caused cracks in walls and ceilings.
He says underpinning the five-storey townhouse would now cost £68,273, compared to just £3,273 if the tree was removed to prevent subsidence caused by clay shrinkage.
Another tree he blames for the damage is a 37-foot-tall mimosa in his neighbor’s yard.
Miliband is at loggerheads with his neighbours, who objected to the felling of the maple tree on the grounds that the tree was a sanctuary for wildlife and provided privacy for adjoining houses in a conservation area.
Agents for Mr Miliband, who lost the Labour leadership battle to his brother Ed in 2010, filed separate applications last year to cut down both trees for “root nuisance”.
Former Foreign Secretary David Miliband (pictured) is at loggerheads with his neighbours who protested against the felling of the Acer because it is a haven for wildlife.
The 58-year-old wants to cut down a large maple tree in his five-story house in the celebrity enclave of Primrose Hill in north London
The former MP is now threatening to sue his local council for damages after his second attempt to cut down the “extraordinarily beautiful” 26-foot maple tree (pictured) was rejected.
They presented reports from construction experts which showed that the mimosa was the main cause of the subsidence damage to the ex-politician’s terraced house and that the maple was a possible secondary cause.
It was believed that the trees had absorbed moisture from the clay subsoil around the foundation at the rear of the four-bedroom house, causing the masonry to move downward and develop cracks.
However, city council officials concluded that there was insufficient evidence to attribute the cause to either specimen and imposed a tree protection order on both.
Mr Miliband, who reportedly earns £500,000 a year in his influential leadership position at the New York-based International Rescue Committee, had already submitted a second request to fell the maple tree this year.
But once again, Camden City Council rejected the development after objections from some neighbors, one of whom described the building as “extraordinarily beautiful” in the neighborhood that is also home to other famous residents such as actors Jenna Coleman, Daisy Ridley and Julian Clary.
A report from Miliband’s insurers suggested that underpinning works would cost £65,000 if the trees were not removed.
A report submitted by Miliband’s insurer estimated that if the trees were not removed, the underpinning work would cost £65,000 and threatened that the city could be sued for the costs.
It said that if the felling was not approved, Miliband would have to “stabilise the building by other means, such as concrete underpinning, and seek compensation from the council for these excessive costs”.
The remedial work to repair the cracks in his house would cost just £3,273 if felling the trees eliminated the risk of future subsidence and thus avoided the need for underpinning, the report said.
A report prepared for Mr Miliband provisionally concluded that the “current damage” to his house was due to “variable foundation movements, exacerbated by the loss of moisture from vegetation growing adjacent to the building’s foundations”.
The report identified the neighbor’s mimosa as the main cause, while the maple could not be ruled out as a “contributor to general soil drying” and was considered a “contributing influence.”
Another report, made after an excavation, found that roots attributable to the mimosa tree were present around the foundations and were responsible for the “clay shrinkage”.
Mr Miliband’s planning officer added: “In the event of a refusal, we or our clients will seek compensation for the additional costs incurred.”
Among the neighbors who objected to the removal of the maple was Wendy Levitt, who wrote: “I object to the removal of this exceptionally beautiful tree, which I have a direct view of from my house.”
“As a refuge for birds, bees and squirrels, it makes a significant contribution to the garden corridor… a rare environmental amenity at this time of climate change threat.”
“In addition, visibility between houses built close together is significantly reduced.
“The felling notification came very soon after the earlier notification, which Camden lifted in November 2023 because the felling was not found to contribute to significant cracking.
“I would like to know to what extent the situation has changed during this period and why the usual methods of removing cracks do not seem to have been tried.”
Another neighbor, Daniel Stillit, wrote: “For environmental reasons and because of the terrible impact it would have on us, it should not be destroyed.”
“In particular, my daughter, who is chronically ill, spends a lot of time in the shade of this tree. There are too few trees in the area and the TPO should be respected.”
A third resident added: “Removing this tree would significantly alter the visual barrier between my house and the houses on the neighboring street.”
The trees were blamed for soaking up moisture from the clay subsoil surrounding the foundations at the rear of the four-bedroom house.
“Since the fig tree was removed, the maple tree has become even more important as a green corridor through our neighborhood.”
The council rejected the latest request to fell the maple tree on the grounds that: “The tree is considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the nature reserve.”
The ruling noted that soil samples and monitoring indicated “seasonal movements of the foundations, possibly related to vegetation.”
However, it said the maple tree was not to blame because no maple root samples were found in a sample pit and a borehole. This led to the conclusion “with all probability” that the tree “did not contribute to the damage”.
In its separate decision against felling the mimosa, the Council acknowledged that analyses carried out next to the foundation had found root samples “from the same taxonomic family as the mimosa tree”.
However, the judgment argued that monitoring had not produced “any results of a cyclical nature” showing upward movement of the foundations during the wetter winter months, which would be expected if vegetation was responsible for the subsidence.
The judgment concluded: “Consequently, the evidence currently presented cannot establish with a level of probability that the tree contributed to the damage.”
The council granted separate requests from a neighbour behind Miliband’s house who wanted to trim back maple and mimosa branches hanging over his garden.
The dispute over the trees is the second time that Miliband has been involved in a dispute with neighbours.
Shortly after he and his family moved to New York in 2013, neighbors complained about the wild parties thrown by property developer Robert Soning, who rented the house for £7,000 a month.
Mr Soning, the son-in-law of Labour donor Sir David Garrard, admitted hosting parties, including one for his daughter, but said neighbours were on a “witch hunt” and “too sensitive”.
